Volume 18, Number 11—November 2012
Research
Lack of Evidence for Zoonotic Transmission of Schmallenberg Virus
Chantal Reusken1
, Cees van den Wijngaard1, Paul van Beek, Martin Beer, Ruth Bouwstra, Gert-Jan Godeke, Leslie Isken, Hans van den Kerkhof, Wilfrid van Pelt, Wim van der Poel, Johan Reimerink, Peter Schielen, Jonas Schmidt-Chanasit, Piet Vellema, Ankje de Vries, Inge Wouters, and Marion Koopmans
, Cees van den Wijngaard1, Paul van Beek, Martin Beer, Ruth Bouwstra, Gert-Jan Godeke, Leslie Isken, Hans van den Kerkhof, Wilfrid van Pelt, Wim van der Poel, Johan Reimerink, Peter Schielen, Jonas Schmidt-Chanasit, Piet Vellema, Ankje de Vries, Inge Wouters, and Marion KoopmansTable 1
Probability of detecting at least 1 seropositive sample among different sample sizes and hypothetical seroprevalences in study to determine whether Schmallenberg virus can be zoonotically transmitted, the Netherlands
| Sample size | Hypothetical seroprevalence, % | Probability* of detecting at least 1 seropositive, % |
|---|---|---|
| 50 | 2.00 | 63.58 |
| 100 | 2.00 | 86.74 |
| 150 | 2.00 | 95.17 |
| 192 | 2.00 | 97.93 |
| 200 | 2.00 | 98.24 |
| 301 | 2.00 | 99.77 |
| 301 | 1.00 | 95.14 |
| 301 | 0.50 | 77.88 |
| 301 | 0.25 | 52.93 |
| 301 | 3.00 | 99.99 |
*The probability was calculated as 1 – (1 – seroprevalence) × sample size, so for a seroprevalence of 2% and a sample size of 200 the probability of detecting at least 1 seropositive = 1 – (1 – 0.02) × 200.
1These authors contributed equally to this article.
